Opinion

State ex rel. Wetecamp v. Brown

  • 159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 172
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 25, 1953
Status
Published
On the bench
Hart, Matthias, Middleton, Stewart, Taet, Weygandt, Zimmerman
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Per Curiam.

The issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring the appointment as prayed for would be a vain thing, inasmuch, had Wetecamp been holding the office for such term, he would automatically have been retired on June 30, 1952, as required by Section 486-59, General Code, unless, upon approval of an application therefor, he had been “continued in service for a period of one year or any part thereof,” which the Secretary of State, as the appointing authority, refused to do.

The question involved, therefore, is moot. The petition is dismissed on authority of Miner v. Witt, City Clerk, 82 Ohio St., 237 , 92 N. E., 21 .

Petition dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taet, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Stewart, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.